1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who runs the joint-use construction and the wholesale and retail business of materials with the trade name of "C," and the defendant is a personal entrepreneur who runs the joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-use joint-

However, the defendant himself as a family owner and only lent the name of business registration to her husband F, and does not know to the plaintiff. Even according to the plaintiff's argument, E's actual business operator is F, the defendant's husband at the time of the above transaction, and also requested the supply at the time of the above transaction. Thus, the above contract for quasi-loan for consumption was also prepared on May 6, 2009 (A3) from F, and the payment order was issued on August 13, 2010 against F, since it was delivered on August 13, 2010 against F (the former court of America, the service on August 27, 2010, the above delivery transaction was delivered on August 27, 2010, and the above delivery transaction was F, the defendant's husband at the time of the above transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above delivery transaction was a party to the supply transaction is without merit.

On January 30, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant reported the commencement of the business with F on the same day as the person who suffered from a defect in the notification of the closure of the business on January 30, 201 (B 1-1, 201), the Defendant should be deemed to operate E along with F. However, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have engaged in the business with F. In addition, the Defendant merely lent the name of its business operator to F. Moreover, when the Plaintiff requested the credit information company to collect the debt from the payment order for F., the Plaintiff did not pay 8.5 million won for delay for about five years.